Outsourced Financial Services for High-Growth Companies

propeller accounting

The FAA proposed criteria that created new or modified definitions for the Model M001 powered-lift. The FAA received and reviewed comments from ASD-Europe, ALPA, Alaka’i, ANAC, EASA, GAMA, Leonardo, Lilium, Odys, Overair, TCCA, UKCAA, and an individual commenter that requested the FAA clarify, revise, or adopt as proposed certain definitions. Specifically, these comments were focused on the topic areas of “CSFL,” “controlled emergency landing (CEL),” and “loss of power/thrust,” along with requests for clarification on other uses of the term “thrust.” GAMA and Overair also proposed modifications to the “source of lift” definition. Additionally, comments from Airbus, ALPA, ASD-Europe, EASA, Odys, TCCA, UKCAA, and an individual commenter requested the establishment of a higher safety target for powered-lift like the Model M001. In response, the FAA created an “increased performance” approval that may be granted based on the aircraft’s ability to meet higher performance standards for continued flight under certain failure conditions. Additionally, the Model M001 may be approved for both essential and increased performance with appropriate and different operating limitations.

What goes around – AOPA

What goes around.

Posted: Wed, 22 Mar 2023 07:00:00 GMT [source]

AM1.2821 Variable- and Reversible-Pitch Propellers

The FAA concurs since AM1.2515(b) is applicable to IFR operations and systems with hazardous or major failure conditions. The FAA did not adopt the term “significantly” from proposed AM1.2515(b) to ensure both major and hazardous failure conditions are appropriately assessed. The FAA received comments from Airbus, ASD-Europe, EASA, GAMA, Leonardo, Lilium, Odys, Overair, TCCA, Rolls-Royce, and Volocopter requesting that the FAA revise, remove, or clarify the proposed airworthiness criteria related to propulsion safety and integration on the Model M001.

AM1.1529 Instructions for Continued Airworthiness

  • The criteria are derived from part 35 requirements, which provide an acceptable level of safety for both part 23 and 25 airplanes.
  • (2) Summarize those failures that could result in major propeller effects or hazardous propeller effects defined in paragraph (g) of this section, and estimate the probability of occurrence of those effects.
  • We are more than just an outsourced CFO and accounting provider; we are a growth partner for our clients.
  • (3) Ensure that the flightcrew is made suitably aware whenever the means of primary flight control approaches the limits of control authority.
  • This minimum wind limit is applicable to the thrust-borne operations and is consistent with requirements for parts 27 and 29 rotorcraft.
  • The FAA received a comment that pass and fail criteria should be defined for the requirement in proposed AM1.2705 to minimize the development of an unsafe condition in the engine and recommended using the criteria in AM1.2717(d)(2).

A commenter requested clarification on the phrase “applicable sources of lift” in AM1.2135(a)(2). During a specific phase of flight, an aircraft design may only allow for a singular source of lift during that phase of flight. Therefore, “applicable sources of lift” refers to only those allowable by the aircraft design. (1) The engine electrical-power distribution system must be designed to provide the safe transfer of electrical energy throughout https://www.bookstime.com/articles/double-declining-balance-method the electrical power plant. The system must be designed to provide electrical power so that the loss, malfunction, or interruption of the electrical power source will not result in a hazardous engine effect, as defined in AM1.2717(d)(2). (4) Ensure failures or malfunctions that lead to local events in the aircraft do not result in hazardous engine effects as defined in AM1.2717(d)(2) due to engine control system failures or malfunctions.

§ 33.17 Fire Protection

This approach drives meaningful and sustainable results that equip you to face tomorrow’s challenges and forge a prosperous future. Propeller Industries is a fractional CFO and accounting partner to companies that have outgrown bookkeeping but aren’t yet able to support a full-time finance team. We offer a broad range of services ranging from CFO-level strategic planning to day-to-day transaction processing through our team of full-time CFOs and accountants. The firm has US offices in SF, LA, NY, Austin, Boulder and Sun Valley, and currently serves 300+ clients across a diverse portfolio of industries including ecommerce, technology, food & beverage, manufacturing, business services and healthcare.

propeller accounting

The FAA notes that proposed AM1.2430(a)(6), as written, covers this and therefore did not make changes as a result of this comment. The FAA considered these comments and revised proposed AM1.2300 to be less prescriptive in instances where other requirements adequately address the same safety objective. The FAA did not adopt the proposed requirements in AM1.2300(c)(1), (c)(2)(i), and (c)(2)(iii) because they were redundant with other requirements and were unnecessarily prescriptive. The FAA added a more prescriptive requirement specifically for control margin awareness in response to these recommendations. Multiple commenters asked for clarity on the requirements in AM1.2225(d) and whether the intent of that criteria could be shown through means of compliance with AM1.2225(a). AM1.2225(a) is specific to loads for the engine mount, whereas AM1.2225(d) is specific to lifting device assemblies.

Appendix A1—Instructions for Continued Airworthiness (Electric Engine)

propeller accounting

The FAA received several comments that the proposed definition of a “CEL” was not sufficient to ensure that the relevant instances that may be encountered in operation are addressed beyond a “critical loss of thrust” as required under the proposed AM1.2105(g). As such, the FAA revised the proposed propeller accounting CEL definition and the requirements of AM1.2105(g) to establish the minimum level of safety required when the aircraft can no longer provide the commanded power or thrust required for CSFL. Another commenter requested that the FAA add “at the declared operating limits” to proposed AM1.2712(a).

Structural Design Loads

propeller accounting

The FAA also received a comment recommending that AM1.2430(a)(6) be expanded to include minimizing hazards to emergency service responders in addition to occupants. The FAA concurs with this suggestion and adds first responders to the airworthiness criteria. The FAA also considered the comments received on the bird deterrent system requirement in proposed AM1.2320(b), and the FAA concurs with not adopting this proposal.

  • Several commenters identified that these criteria do not include specific failure condition probability targets or required development assurance level criteria and requested that they be included with appropriate rationale.
  • (1) Following a critical change of thrust prior to reaching the takeoff decision point, a rejected takeoff resulting in a safe stop or landing can be made.
  • Lastly, the FAA received several comments on proposed AM1.2165(a), requesting that the FAA explain why the reference to the icing conditions defined in appendix C of part 25 was excluded from these airworthiness criteria.
  • (4) Not have any likely failure or malfunction that leads to local events in the intended aircraft application.
  • Essential performance does not require the aircraft to have the capability to land at the planned or an alternate landing site as is required for increased performance.

The FAA has corrected this error in the final criteria by removing the reference to electrical power supplied to the aircraft by energy regeneration from paragraph (j)(2). Multiple commenters requested clarification on proposed AM1.2709 concerning failure conditions leading to rotor overspeed. The margins in § 33.27(b) are based on the physics of what drives the rotors in turbine engines and turbosupercharger rotors.

AM1.2200 Structural Design Envelope

Spread the word